Durham v. Richland Co. Sheriffs Dept et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 76 motion for the appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 6/8/2016. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jerry B. Adger, Head Probation Officer; Lisa )
Baker, Probation Officer,
C/A No. 3:15-342-TLW-PJG
Plaintiff Keylan Durham, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s
motion in which he requests the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 76.)
There is no right to appointed counsel in § 1983 cases. Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th
Cir. 1975). The court may use its discretion to request counsel to represent an indigent in a civil
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490
U.S. 296 (1989). However, such discretion “should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Cook
v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). Whether exceptional circumstances are present
depends on the type and complexity of the case, and the pro se litigant’s ability to prosecute it.
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard, 490 U.S.
Upon review of the file, the court has determined that there are no exceptional or unusual
circumstances presented at this time, nor would the plaintiff be denied due process if the court denied
Page 1 of 2
plaintiff’s request for counsel. Id. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion requesting counsel under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
June 8, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?